lol - amnesty him? Write him a cheque for $23M (minus whatever a team bids) to walk away and watch a team pick him up returning NOTHING to Toronto? lol - really? Then once he is gone, the Raps are still $8M over the cap and still limited to the MLE or a sign and trade with one less asset now (well, no less assets that matter). Where are the Raptors going to not only replace but increase Bargnani's scoring and more than double his rebounding on $5M per season?

Obviously there is no convincing you. I just broke it down and you refuse to accept it or think I am full of shit - which is certainly a semi-valid opinion.

Personally I think you are delusional of Bargnani's value and contribution to winning. I also think you are ignorant to a player due to his contract despite the fact he would immediately become one of the top 3 or 4 players on the Raptors and has been a major part of playoff teams every year since 2005-2006 and a part of teams who finished the regular season at .500 or better every season since 2004-2005.

The Raptors are already over the salary cap and luxury tax next season and over the cap in 2014-2015. Boozer's contract would be coming off the books (and possibly a trade chip) at the same time as Gay is due for a new contract and the Raptors have just $19M on the books for 2015-16 (DD, JV, TR).

*I* never said amnesty him. I just said don't trade him for Boozer. In your frustration over your inability to convince me that Boozer is worth 'just getting rid of Bargs', you're not reading very carefully, or are willfully ignoring my point. And yes, you've presented a lot of info to suggest why Boozer vs. Bargs is a Boozer win. That's not the point here.

Are you looking to replace Bargnani's production (which you continue to argue is non-existent) or are you looking to improve the team? Boozer in brings short-term gain only, contract notwithstanding, which I argue will be a negative longer term regardless of cap impact.

I think you're just in a hurry to get rid of Bargs. That's a bad objective, IMO, because my argument is that, while he's eating $10M in salary for the rest of the year, he's NOT having any other significant negative impact on the team, the development of younger players, etc. You can continue to argue that Boozer won't have any other negative impact, either, and that's where, yes, we will agree to disagree.

Again, to be clear on MY perpsective on this for the last time: Move Bargnani. But move him for something that doesn't have massive potential to make this team worse over the long haul, not better.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

*I* never said amnesty him. I just said don't trade him for Boozer. In your frustration over your inability to convince me that Boozer is worth 'just getting rid of Bargs', you're not reading very carefully, or are willfully ignoring my point. And yes, you've presented a lot of info to suggest why Boozer vs. Bargs is a Boozer win. That's not the point here.

Are you looking to replace Bargnani's production (which you continue to argue is non-existent) or are you looking to improve the team? Boozer in brings short-term gain only, contract notwithstanding, which I argue will be a negative longer term regardless of cap impact.

I think you're just in a hurry to get rid of Bargs. That's a bad objective, IMO, because my argument is that, while he's eating $10M in salary for the rest of the year, he's NOT having any other significant negative impact on the team, the development of younger players, etc. You can continue to argue that Boozer won't have any other negative impact, either, and that's where, yes, we will agree to disagree.

Again, to be clear on MY perpsective on this for the last time: Move Bargnani. But move him for something that doesn't have massive potential to make this team worse over the long haul, not better.

Well, I think Boozer (the player, v.s the dollars) is not very good, and a poor fit for this team as (it seems to be being) built.

- He will take floor time away for Valanciunas. This one is an obvious drawback.
- He will take floor time away from Amir. This one depends on your appraisal of Amir, but I've said before I think he's mjore than adequate as a starting 4, and a better fit for this team.
- He will require (and likely desire) significant touches to be productive at the offensive end. That means effort making his need for the ball fit with Gay, Lowry, and Derozan, who are clearly seen as more long-term pieces. It would mean a shift in their current schemes to a more interior-centric offense. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think it's a bad thing when the player you're moving things around for will not be here in 3 years when the rest of them are expecting to be competing for a championship.
- He is an albatross on defense. He's never been a good defender, and now he's 31, and likely to be difficult to motivate if he gets traded to Toronto.

- Now for the contract. When he's in his final year, at 34 years of age, do you think he's going to be any easier to move than Bargnani? You'd basically be trading one useless, difficult-to-move contract for another. Any discussion of this trade hinges on the ability to maximize that asset. If you can't move him for something -- same as is being discussed with AB now -- and he doesn't significantly improve the team now without hamstringing it after he leaves, then that's bad asset management. And I'm very skeptical of him having any more value in 3 years than Bargs has now.

- None of this is touching on possible chemistry issues. He'd be leaving, against his will, from a team with championship aspirations (once Rose returns) to go to a developing team that he knows he's a gap-filler on. He's been noted throughout his career for being kinda lazy and apathetic. He's never been a "closer" or big-game player, but he might get delusions of grandeur in Toronto. I'm not saying any of these things are guaranteed to happen, but they are a distinct possibility which, when coupled with my other concerns noted above, make me very wary.

Again, I'm evaluating this *solely* on what would be coming to Toronto, not what would be going out. I would never make a desperation deal to move a player unless his presence has a significant negative impact on the rest of the team.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

ya i just read that article too..it almost reeks of desperation on Chicago's part...especially since its comming out of the chicago tribune...Bulls would need to sweetenthe pot for me to even consider it..hope BC takes the best deal but im not sure this is it

ya i just read that article too..it almost reeks of desperation on Chicago's part...especially since its comming out of the chicago tribune...Bulls would need to sweetenthe pot for me to even consider it..hope BC takes the best deal but im not sure this is it

Especially the deal as is.....Why would we give them JL3??? We'd still have depth issues at PG. I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker, but they clearly want him rather than us offering him, right??

I still am really not keen on this deal. I think it could be the worst deal possible, but I also realize it may be the only one available that makes any kind of sense, even if it's minimal. For me to consider this deal at all, they would absolutely have to throw in a 1st round pick. Otherwise, I don't see why BC should feel any pressure. I still think it's not a huge deal if we miss the playoffs this year. He has already saved his job, and re-energized the fanbase. There's no reason in my mind that a similar deal won't be available in the summer, when Chicago is still likely to pay the tax next year so they will want to make savings. We don't have to take this deal now just to do them a favor (in terms of letting them save money, just so we're a slightly better first round exit this season at best).
*REally, doing this move now is ONLY because it improves our playoff chances this year. Any other move in now or in the summer to get a different PF likely improves our team in the years to come...to me this is more important, and again, if nothing presents itself, the Boozer deal should still be there because apparently no other team wants him.

Maybe we could jump Brooklyn and be around the 5th seed, but I can't see us being top 4. I wonder if it would be better to pay the extra $$ he wants over what Boozer is making now, and go after Josh Smith. I think his skill set can push us into the top 4. Thoughts?

Maybe we could jump Brooklyn and be around the 5th seed, but I can't see us being top 4. I wonder if it would be better to pay the extra $$ he wants over what Boozer is making now, and go after Josh Smith. I think his skill set can push us into the top 4. Thoughts?

I'm thinking 50 wins would be a realistic possibility (if the stars aligned). That should be good enough for the 4th-5th seed.

Especially the deal as is.....Why would we give them JL3??? We'd still have depth issues at PG. I'm not saying it's a dealbreaker, but they clearly want him rather than us offering him, right??

I still am really not keen on this deal. I think it could be the worst deal possible, but I also realize it may be the only one available that makes any kind of sense, even if it's minimal. For me to consider this deal at all, they would absolutely have to throw in a 1st round pick. Otherwise, I don't see why BC should feel any pressure. I still think it's not a huge deal if we miss the playoffs this year. He has already saved his job, and re-energized the fanbase. There's no reason in my mind that a similar deal won't be available in the summer, when Chicago is still likely to pay the tax next year so they will want to make savings. We don't have to take this deal now just to do them a favor (in terms of letting them save money, just so we're a slightly better first round exit this season at best).
*REally, doing this move now is ONLY because it improves our playoff chances this year. Any other move in now or in the summer to get a different PF likely improves our team in the years to come...to me this is more important, and again, if nothing presents itself, the Boozer deal should still be there because apparently no other team wants him.

I'm assuming they are including the Lucas/Robinson portion of the deal to help minimize the Boozer/Bargnani salary discrepancy (from Toronto's perspective), while still enabling Chicago to get below the luxury tax threshhold. I don't think the Bulls really care about either Lucas/Robinson, since both will be gone after this season - they have Rose coming back, Hinrich under contract for next season and Teague developing as Hinrich's eventual successor.

I still don't like it, even if a 1st round pick is included from Chicago.

I'm assuming they are including the Lucas/Robinson portion of the deal to help minimize the Boozer/Bargnani salary discrepancy (from Toronto's perspective), while still enabling Chicago to get below the luxury tax threshhold. I don't think the Bulls really care about either Lucas/Robinson, since both will be gone after this season - they have Rose coming back, Hinrich under contract for next season and Teague developing as Hinrich's eventual successor.

I still don't like it, even if a 1st round pick is included from Chicago.

Neither do I...the 1st rd pick would just make it more worthy of consideration. I see no reason to rush into this deal, and again, think that it will still be there in the summer if it ends up being the only possibility.

*I* never said amnesty him. I just said don't trade him for Boozer. In your frustration over your inability to convince me that Boozer is worth 'just getting rid of Bargs', you're not reading very carefully, or are willfully ignoring my point. And yes, you've presented a lot of info to suggest why Boozer vs. Bargs is a Boozer win. That's not the point here.

Are you looking to replace Bargnani's production (which you continue to argue is non-existent) or are you looking to improve the team? Boozer in brings short-term gain only, contract notwithstanding, which I argue will be a negative longer term regardless of cap impact.

I think you're just in a hurry to get rid of Bargs. That's a bad objective, IMO, because my argument is that, while he's eating $10M in salary for the rest of the year, he's NOT having any other significant negative impact on the team, the development of younger players, etc. You can continue to argue that Boozer won't have any other negative impact, either, and that's where, yes, we will agree to disagree.

Again, to be clear on MY perpsective on this for the last time: Move Bargnani. But move him for something that doesn't have massive potential to make this team worse over the long haul, not better.

Yeah, for me Boozer is pretty-much the worst of all rumoured options. However, he's also the most realistic of all rumoured options. At a minimum, I'd want a draft pick back, and even then it would be tough to swallow.

The PG side of it makes it even more difficult to evaluate for me... Robinson is one of my least favorite players in the league. I'd be spending the rest of the season hoping that the Raptors don't offer him a new contract in the summer.

Well, I think Boozer (the player, v.s the dollars) is not very good, and a poor fit for this team as (it seems to be being) built.

How? Team appears to be playing slower with more ISO.

jimmie wrote:

- He will take floor time away for Valanciunas. This one is an obvious drawback.

Really? Boozer plays PF and 29/30 mins a game. JV starts at C and lets say Casey gives him 35 mins (which would be among league leaders) that still leaves 31 mins at PF/C which Amir can play both.... not to mention injuries, foul trouble, matchups, etc.

jimmie wrote:

- He will take floor time away from Amir. This one depends on your appraisal of Amir, but I've said before I think he's mjore than adequate as a starting 4, and a better fit for this team.

You need more than adequate starters in the league. Amir coming off the bench is something just about every team in the league would love to have.

jimmie wrote:

- He will require (and likely desire) significant touches to be productive at the offensive end. That means effort making his need for the ball fit with Gay, Lowry, and Derozan, who are clearly seen as more long-term pieces. It would mean a shift in their current schemes to a more interior-centric offense. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think it's a bad thing when the player you're moving things around for will not be here in 3 years when the rest of them are expecting to be competing for a championship.

Is this Boozer or Bargnani? He will need less touches than Bargnani on offense. He also gets 2.5 more offensive opportunities on his own per game than Bargnani by hitting offensive glass. He currently plays on a team where, when Rose is healthy, is a 3rd option. No reason he can't do the same in Toronto.

jimmie wrote:

- He is an albatross on defense. He's never been a good defender, and now he's 31, and likely to be difficult to motivate if he gets traded to Toronto.

Bargnani is a mega-albatross on defense. He's never been an average defender, and now he's 27, and likely to get motivated unless he is traded from Toronto because he clearly has no motivation in Toronto now. See what I did there? I stated the truth in the beginning and made shit up at the end but still managed to finish with a truth. This boo-hoo attitude of a guy not willing to try in Toronto is bullshit and wreaks of years of Raptor insecurity.

jimmie wrote:

- Now for the contract. When he's in his final year, at 34 years of age, do you think he's going to be any easier to move than Bargnani? You'd basically be trading one useless, difficult-to-move contract for another. Any discussion of this trade hinges on the ability to maximize that asset. If you can't move him for something -- same as is being discussed with AB now -- and he doesn't significantly improve the team now without hamstringing it after he leaves, then that's bad asset management. And I'm very skeptical of him having any more value in 3 years than Bargs has now.

He will be 33 when his contract is up and has just 2 seasons left on his contract. He is still better than Bargnani.

jimmie wrote:

- None of this is touching on possible chemistry issues. He'd be leaving, against his will, from a team with championship aspirations (once Rose returns) to go to a developing team that he knows he's a gap-filler on. He's been noted throughout his career for being kinda lazy and apathetic. He's never been a "closer" or big-game player, but he might get delusions of grandeur in Toronto. I'm not saying any of these things are guaranteed to happen, but they are a distinct possibility which, when coupled with my other concerns noted above, make me very wary.

Chemistry is bullshit. Talent matters. The Lakers won championships with guys hating each other. Guys liking each other is great but it is not necessary. I don't like all the people I work with but we are still successful in our industry. I am also glad to see you are not saying any of these things are guaranteed because it sounds like you are full of shit - seriously. Statistical evidence please. Boozer has been a part of plus .500 teams since 2005/06 and has been in the playoffs since 2006/07.

jimmie wrote:

Again, I'm evaluating this *solely* on what would be coming to Toronto, not what would be going out. I would never make a desperation deal to move a player unless his presence has a significant negative impact on the rest of the team.

The last 4-5 seasons is not enough to get you to see the significant negative impact Bargnani has had on the Raptors? Commentators, who are paid by team ownership, calling him out doesn't spell it out? The GM calling him out doesn't spell it out? Teammates pissed off with his one dimensional, ineffective play is not spelling it out?